December 17, 2010

"... don't fundamentally oppose the earmarking process -- to back off the omnibus, according to a Republican leadership aide. Part of it was that, though bipartisan, the bill itself included funding for key Democratic priorities that in the current political environment no Republican supports, or wants to be accused of supporting. The omnibus included $1 billion in spending to implement the health care law -- a provision no Republican wanted to de facto support."

It's easy to type "like he" when you mean to type "likely". The keys are so close together.

Also, it's easy to type "e" when you mean to type "im". Close together.

Also, I've seen weird stuff happen with coffee spills. Even a strong, liquid sneeze could easily make ", like he, " come from outta nowhere.

It is not, however, easy to understand how people who cannot write get to do so for a living. But they do. Often the people who do it professionally are among the poorest writers among us. It is a puzzlement.

According to James Taranto of the WSJ, a point is being raised in that court suit in Florida, that I have had kind of a feeling of, but could not put into words: That the Obamacare bill requires the medical insurance companies to kind of act like fronts for the IRS and HHS in collecting premiums (taxes) and disbursing payments (social program), and that without actual Federal authority or oversight.

I've been pondering this question more generally: how is it that some professions seem to be filled with people who suck at the job? Examples: journalists are often terrible writers, lawyers often have terrible ethics, politicians often have lousy policies, and architects often seem clueless about beauty.

In some other professions, though, practitioners are usually exemplars. Accountants and bookkeepers are good with numbers. Soldiers (American ones, anyway) tend to be tough and rough and ready. Teachers tend to mix patience with firmness (silly word).

McConnell will have hard two years. Obama plays chess. He is working on end-game. The GOP are struggling with what to start the game with. It is over. This is so called defeat is just that - a setup. The GOP is already overreach.

I predict that by early Jan., the GOP will be fighting for air to breath. By Nov. 2012, the Democrats will win the House, keep the Senate, and retain the WH.

I don't think that strange, though I suspect that he thinks more about it with men than women. As straight men, we just don't think of other men as sexual objects, and so it seems strange to us.

But males are visual by nature and easily aroused. And, I would suggest that many, if not most, males think of having sex with many of the women they see. It is a transitory thought, quickly forgotten when the object of our temporary lust leaves our visual field.

Indeed, at lunch today at the Subway next door, a young woman with her boyfriend walked in. The way she moved was delightful. And, for a moment or two, I envisioned how it would be with her in the sack. Never mind that she was 35-40 years younger than I or that several females in my life would make my life quite miserable if I ever attempted such a feat.

I suspect that there are plenty of males who have mentally undressed Sarah Palin, and found her quite appealing, but if they ever considered such with Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, they shuddered. Especially those elephant legs and harpy mouth. Supposedly, Pelosi was quite hot 40 years ago. Not so Hillary. But back then, at least, she didn't have those legs (supposedly, they were a complication from her pregnancy).

It is just impolite though to admit this mentally undressing of women in polite company, esp. if it includes other women, whom we have invariably also mentally undressed. Often, with reactions like Titus' above. Titus gets away with talking about it, because he is mentally undressing men, and not women, and women, who are the ones who control polite company, really don't care about that.

McConnell suddenly realized there were 2 freight trains headed for the Senate. One was the universal outrage at what Harry Reid was trying to pull and the transparent manner he was trying to blackmail Republicans into supporting it, the other was the Damocelan threat of Tea Party retribution if the Rs didn't do right.

The Rs stood to gain nothing from doing the RINO thing, but a great deal to lose; conversely, standing by their party principles carried no risks and a lot of rewards.

"I suspect that there are plenty of males who have mentally undressed Sarah Palin, and found her quite appealing, but if they ever considered such with Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, they shuddered. Especially those elephant legs and harpy mouth. Supposedly, Pelosi was quite hot 40 years ago. Not so Hillary. But back then, at least, she didn't have those legs (supposedly, they were a complication from her pregnancy)."

Looks are very overrated when examining whether or not a woman would be great in the sack. Alhough I am more conservative than Christine O'Donnell's tampon, I think Hillary would be a hot piece of tuna if you got workin'

You and Hillary go out for a few drinks. You argue about politics back and forth. You go back to her place for a nightcap. One thing leads to another and you are back in the bedroom naked. As your lips touch you close your eyes and you think about someone else.

"I suspect that there are plenty of males who have mentally undressed Sarah Palin, and found her quite appealing, but if they ever considered such with Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, they shuddered. Especially those elephant legs and harpy mouth. Supposedly, Pelosi was quite hot 40 years ago. Not so Hillary. But back then, at least, she didn't have those legs (supposedly, they were a complication from her pregnancy)."

Looks are very overrated when examining whether or not a woman would be great in the sack. Alhough I am more conservative than Christine O'Donnell's tampon, I think Hillary would be a hot piece of tuna if you got workin'

Maybe the problem isn't Hill, but maybe the former Serial Rapist in Chief is a lousy lover. Maybe once or twice and it's the women that want to move on. You don't see too many old girlfriends hanging around Chappaqua.

The next two years will be a struggle between Frisbeetarianism –the Democratic theory that, after lymphing (walking with a lisp) for years, the US economy will fly onto the roof of the Department of Treasury and get stuck there – and Palindromism – the Republican theory that the slippery economy can be caught in the air and thrown with flair to bring the US (and us) back into the future.To gain a modification (tax cuts) of the economic policy the Republicans accepted (Stimulus 2) its direction. In January we'll get the pontificating porcupines' pork-fight over the Omnibus bill. Moves in the never-ending Washington game of “who's the boss, who's the toss?”

A very good friend of mine (a symphony music director and conductor as it turns out) confessed that the only way he got thru interminable board meetings was to visualize everyone naked. That would have been very successful with english horn player, BTW--she was smoking hot.

Maybe someone more familiar with this stuff can explain what all this means. What is an omnibus bill, and what is the "continuation" bill they passed instead? Does the latter include all the earmarks and trash that they passed last year?